Evidences for Evolution
In the comments of my Kent Hovind post, Nick, a young-earth creationist (YEC), asks:
The answer to the question is absolutely, resoundingly yes - there are innumerable evidences for evolution. But, speaking from experience, I was not convinced to abandon my YEC convictions by some single, simple proof. My transformation in thinking resulted from several years of detailed study. My thoughts changed in a two-step process. First, I was convinced by scientific evidence that YEC theories are completely unworkable. I was assured of this long before I considered evolution to be a viable alternative. Second, I slowly and meticulously studied evidences for evolution, and I now find it to be the most plausible explanation for human origins.
Please note: it is not a matter of simple belief, it is a matter of study and truth.
I certainly owe the readers of this blog a complete biography of my scientific and spiritual journeys. But, as this is my first day off in a very long time, my answer to Nick's question will constrained to a list of references for further reading. Included among them are a multitude of evidences for evolution.
As a starting point, these websites offer excellent introductions to evolution:
Understanding Evolution - http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
Evolution - http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/
A good repository of information and debates on evolution is Talk.Origins:
http://www.talkorigins.org/
On the Talk.Origins archive is one of the best repositories of evidences for evolution. This is written at a more advanced level than most material on the Internet. It is worth wading through, however.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Similarly, Talk.Origins also maintains an archive of the distortions that YEC leaders put out there to mislead the flock on scientific matters. It is arranged by topic. If you hear a creationist claim, check out the rebuttal here:
Index to Creationist Claims - http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/
Similarly, the following site exists specifically to counter every claim Kent Hovind has ever made:
An Analysis of Kent Hovind (Dr. Dino) - http://www.kent-hovind.com/
Finally, an author whose work was of great interest to me while I was leaving the YEC fold was Glenn Morton. A professional geophysicist, Glenn worked at and published research for the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) until his scientific honesty led him away from the ICR party line. Though he has suffered a split with ICR's YEC theory and become an evolutionist, he has attempted to maintain his Christian faith. [I have not maintained this same faith, and I do not agree with his theological discussions.] Glenn's site is hard to navigate, but the content is worth it. A multitude of articles can be found here:
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/dmd.htm
Nick, I sincerely wish you the best of luck wrestling with this issue. Take your time with this - a real answer takes real study! Make sure that in the end you are convinced because of your own thoughts and conclusions - not those impressed upon you by a YEC teacher, by a scientist, or by me. But in all this, keep this as your standard of measure: what can be shown to be TRUE.
Feel free to keep asking me questions.
Nick is a bit younger than me, and at his age, I was also a fervent YEC, ready to defend the faith with the piles of "evidence" for creationism against what I perceived to be the "transparent lies" of the evolutionists. Having been there, I feel that honest questions like his deserve complete answers. This is a very commonly asked question due to the fact that YEC leaders have convinced so many congregations that there is not a sure-fire evolutionist answer.
Do you believe in evolution? I might as well just come out and tell you… I don'’t. I am a YEC as Kent Hovind is. But I am not closed minded. Can you please give me proof, any proof for evolution[?]
The answer to the question is absolutely, resoundingly yes - there are innumerable evidences for evolution. But, speaking from experience, I was not convinced to abandon my YEC convictions by some single, simple proof. My transformation in thinking resulted from several years of detailed study. My thoughts changed in a two-step process. First, I was convinced by scientific evidence that YEC theories are completely unworkable. I was assured of this long before I considered evolution to be a viable alternative. Second, I slowly and meticulously studied evidences for evolution, and I now find it to be the most plausible explanation for human origins.
Please note: it is not a matter of simple belief, it is a matter of study and truth.
I certainly owe the readers of this blog a complete biography of my scientific and spiritual journeys. But, as this is my first day off in a very long time, my answer to Nick's question will constrained to a list of references for further reading. Included among them are a multitude of evidences for evolution.
As a starting point, these websites offer excellent introductions to evolution:
Understanding Evolution - http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
Evolution - http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/
A good repository of information and debates on evolution is Talk.Origins:
http://www.talkorigins.org/
On the Talk.Origins archive is one of the best repositories of evidences for evolution. This is written at a more advanced level than most material on the Internet. It is worth wading through, however.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Similarly, Talk.Origins also maintains an archive of the distortions that YEC leaders put out there to mislead the flock on scientific matters. It is arranged by topic. If you hear a creationist claim, check out the rebuttal here:
Index to Creationist Claims - http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/
Similarly, the following site exists specifically to counter every claim Kent Hovind has ever made:
An Analysis of Kent Hovind (Dr. Dino) - http://www.kent-hovind.com/
Finally, an author whose work was of great interest to me while I was leaving the YEC fold was Glenn Morton. A professional geophysicist, Glenn worked at and published research for the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) until his scientific honesty led him away from the ICR party line. Though he has suffered a split with ICR's YEC theory and become an evolutionist, he has attempted to maintain his Christian faith. [I have not maintained this same faith, and I do not agree with his theological discussions.] Glenn's site is hard to navigate, but the content is worth it. A multitude of articles can be found here:
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/dmd.htm
Nick, I sincerely wish you the best of luck wrestling with this issue. Take your time with this - a real answer takes real study! Make sure that in the end you are convinced because of your own thoughts and conclusions - not those impressed upon you by a YEC teacher, by a scientist, or by me. But in all this, keep this as your standard of measure: what can be shown to be TRUE.
Feel free to keep asking me questions.
Labels:
Creationism,
Evolution
22 comments:
Sir thank you for that. However I wanted YOU to give me the proof that a ton of websites. I truly believe that you don’t know very much on the subject. I want you to show me. Because I believe that I cant prove you wrong. Please you tell me.
I look over those websites in depth and the whole thing was a big lie, the whole thing. That’s why I wanted you to tell me. I want you to be accountable for what you say. That’s why I don’t like the websites. I am truly grateful for you going through all that trouble for you giving me all that. But they are lies plan and simple. So don’t worry if it takes you awhile to reply. I’ll wait.
Nick (or any other reader), I would invite you to point out to me a single lie - just one - in what has been presented. We can then discuss specifics, rather than generalities.
Sir I could show you tons of them, but I will only show you one or two for now.
1. In one of the many links you provided there is one that talks about “The Big Bang Theory” and cosmic evolution.
Ok I have a bone to pick with that. First let me tell you about a law in physics. Its called “The Conservation of Angular Momentum” and it states as follows:
When a spinning object in a FRICTIONLESS environment, is struck by something of if anything “falls” off that object the thing that fell off will continue in the came direction of rotation.
Now lets hear about the big bang theory:
The Big Bang Theory is the dominant scientific theory about the origin of the universe. According to the big bang, the universe was created sometime between 10 billion and 20 billion years ago from a cosmic explosion that hurled matter and in all directions. And slowly over time evolved to that planets and moons we see today.
Ok now answer me this… why are the some of Jupiter’s moons spinning in opposite directions. All through the known solar system there are planets and moon spinning in opposite directions.
And that is just one many lines of bull I saw. I’ll be honest with you, I would write more but I’m going to bed.
nickopolist312@netpenny.net
The Conservation of Angular Momentum:
The big bang was not an explosion. Space itself expanded (and is still expanding). The big bang is quite a different subject from the formation of solar systems. Rotations within the universe are not expected to be related to any rotation of the cosmos. Galaxies probably arose from slightly denser regions of the early universe, which coalesced and combined due to gravitational and viscous interactions. Since these early density fluctuations were apparently random, we expect galaxies to have random orientations. Solar systems within galaxies have still different origins and additional random influences on their orientations.
Conservation of angular momentum doesn't require that everything spin the same way. It requires that a change in spin in one object be compensated for by an opposite change in spin in one or more other objects. Retrograde planets are not a violation of angular momentum because other bodies in the early solar system could account for the compensating spin.
If the big bang were an explosion, we would expect different spins. When something explodes, pieces fly out spinning in all directions.
hey i dont know what your talking about. every text book i have ever read shows it as a "massive explosion" and my i qoute. And where did these "slighty denser regions" come from? slighty denser then what? nothing? you cant say it is the begining of something and then have somethink to compaire it to.
i would like to show you somthing from a well known space science professor:
"Although the Big Bang Theory is widely accepted, it probably will never be proved; consequentially, leaving a number of tough, unanswered questions."
now just that a evolutionist like yourself says that a theory like that will probably never be proved tells me that it is dumb proof evolution.
Nickopolist312@netpenny.net
Nick,
the solar system is a very tiny piece of the whole universe. You may want to see http://powersof10.com/index.php?mod=power_detail&id_power=25
to get a grasp of the scales involved. So any peculiarities of the angular momentum of the solar system do not say anything about the big bang. Also, I do not see your point why moons revolving around their planets in opposite directions involve any contradiction to the preservation of the angular momentum. The planets and the larger moons were created by the disk of matter revolving around the proto sun, and all of the bigger moons indeed revolve in the 'proper' direction. The exceptions are smaller moons that have been captured by the planets, and their direction is pretty much random. Arguing that these somehow violate the preservation of angular momentum is like arguing that you cannot stir your coffee an any particular direction. The same can be argued for the total angular momentum of the solar system - there will be enough angular momentum in other parts of the universe to make the total of the universe exactly zero.
To Corey's correct discussion of retrograde planets and moons, I would also add this link, which may add some more insight:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE260.html
Nick, clearly the descriptions and pictures of the Big Bang as a "massive explosion" are for illustration purposes only. It would be beneficial for you to gain a better understanding of the Big Bang before you criticize it. Start with something basic like the Wikipedia entry - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
For an even better understanding, try Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time.
To borrow from a few other sources, here is a direct answer to your explosion question:
"It is necessary to understand that the Big Bang did not begin as a huge explosion within the universe, the Big Bang created the universe. A popular misconception is that it happened within the universe and that it is expanding through it. This causes people to wonder where in the universe it started, as if by running the clock backwards we would reach the point where all the galaxies come together in the centre of the universe. The universe does not have a centre, any more than the surface of a sphere has a centre, there is no preferred place that could be termed the centre. I know this sounds odd, it must have a centre, mustn't it? The problem we have here is we are trying to visualize the universe in the standard 3 dimensions that we are familiar with and therefore expect to find a centre to an expanding sphere. The universe, however, is not an expanding 3 dimensional sphere, it contains also the dimension of time (see 'What is Time?') and many other dimensions as well. By way of an illustration imagine a balloon with dots painted on the surface to represent the galaxies. If the balloon is now inflated we can see that all the dots are moving away from one another, just as the galaxies are in the real universe, and we can also see that on the surface of the balloon there is no centre point from which all the galaxies are moving away from. I am not suggesting that we are existing on the 'outside' of an expanding bubble, only that we cannot visualize the entire expanding universe."
Look just a bit harder at a few of these questions you have posed to me. I think you will find out the same thing that I did – that these supposed "problems" that creationists put forth to confuse their followers are nothing more than superficial equivocations. There is not an argument that creationists have put forward that does not have an answer. The world of science is not retreating before the "logic" of the creationists. By the way, I doubt there is one of these creationist "stumpers" that you've got that I have not looked into before.
As for your quote, it comes from a NASA for Teens website that has not been updated since 1997. Not exactly the strongest source of knowledge. Try the other links I provided if you want to get an accurate view of the current understanding of the Big Bang Theory. Also, talk to your parents/teachers about this discussion and look over the sources I've given you with them.
my point is that i believe that God put made those planets spinning like that to make the (BBT) look dumb.
and that coffee ideia is really dumb. it goes against phyics for those plantes to do that. if all the matter in the universe was conpressed to a dot that exploded so X amount of years ago it would all follow that same rotation. I want to know why are those planets spinning in opasitte directions. and BBT is just a spit in the river conpaired to what else evoulution teaches
Nick, no one else on here is using words like "dumb" to describe the thoughts of other posters. We can criticize theories, etc., but please be polite to those that are taking the time to talk to you. The fact that you are responding within minutes of other people's posts leads me to believe that you are not interested in what they have to say. Let's keep this honest and actually take adequate time with what others are saying. Otherwise, we're all wasting our time in this discussion.
the reason I am not taking the time to "think" about it is i aready know where they are going with there aguments. its like this...
i belive that 2+2=4
you belive that 2+2=3
and you are trying to tell me that and i am already convinced that it is 4. so i dont need time to think about it.
If you fellas are thinking that you are "converting" me you are way off. so if you kind folks think that is the case i wont waste your time.
OK, then. But I would suggest that you give it some more time and thought. I suppose we're done for now.
look no hard feelings but the truth is the truth and a lie is a lie. i'm sorry that you fell into a lie. i'll be praying that you come around one day.
Nick, in order to call something a lie, you have to provide some evidence to back up your claim. It is when you cannot, the truth hurts.
sir my bible tell me not to cast my pearls before swine. and i believe that is what i am doing by talking to you. you dont care and am acting like you do. and that's fine. your right the truth does hurt.
Wow. Zeteo your patience astounds me, and the sheer volumes information you've both self explained and dragged from the vast reaches of the 'net are both wonderful and impressive. I'll be spending my free time wading through them myself to get a firmer grasp on a few of the topics.
Nick it's unfortunate that you ask such a pleasant sounding question, but then don't actually want to hear the answer. You've made it clear you don't care what the answer is because you won't listen anyways - your posts have the same impression of a child sticking his fingers in his ears and screaming 'lalalalalalala'. Zeteo does in fact care to give you rather full explanations for your questions and you rudely gloss over them and make replies that do not argue the points. How disappointing.
MidnyghtChilde (http://midnyghtchilde.livejournal.com)
my point is that i believe that God put made those planets spinning like that to make the (BBT) look dumb.
Nick, please look up what the logical fallacy "Begging the question" or what a circular argument is. From that point forward, you'd be better off using logic in your arguments instead of ad hominem attacks and oft debunked creationist canards. It will get you much further.
Oh, and Zeteo, nice post. I may link to it in the future as a good conglomoration of links.
Here's another link for your Christian friend who posed the original question:
Book review of "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief."
(written by the former head of the Human Genome Project)
Although he and I might not see eye-to-eye on the 6-Day literal creation account, he certainly believes in God none-the-less.
You can believe in evolution and still be a Christian.
Wow, excellent blog Zeteo, I found it after reading your post to t.o.
Nick, if you had your mind made up already, why ask the question of Zeteo in the first place? In your 4:03pm post you continue to refer to the Big Bang as an explosion, when you were told earlier that that is an oversimplification. Try not to be so closed-minded as to avoid reading what people suggest after you ask a question.
i am a christian. i say that first because i would like to apologise for nicks behaveour. i know nothing that i write will erase his rude and offensive writting or the memory there of, but, i hope(and yes, pray :P) that your oppinion of those that say they follow my Christ has not been tainted. We are not all close-minded and arogant.
-sigh-
your patience and kindness towards him oposed to his aggressive narrow minded and inflamatory answers shames me, as he is the "christian", coming from the same group that i am a part of.
im sorry, this is probably a shallow attempt to change yor long set views on us as a religious group(and in many cases, views that we as christians justly deserve for our wrong actions)
im sorry if i have disrupted your talk. but i just felt it was my duty to apologise for his actions.
i read a quote today by Dostoevsky that said the following: "He who desires to see the living God face to face should not seek Him in the empty firmament of his mind, but in human love"
he was trying to show you God, but was not showing you human love.
anyway, this is long, sorry if this has broken your discusion
God bless all you guys.
I sincerely hope you find him.
not out of desire to convert, but out of love. you sound like very inteligent individuals, continue to be open minded(as i can see you all are)
wow...ha ha....i sound like a hippy with all this writting of "love"... :)
Goodnight(french-time zone, is that "good morning" in american time?)
I Have sympathy with Nick. trying to persuade others to believe the lies of evolution is like getting Kopelowitz to eat pork.
Nick, here is advice (humbly tho)
Carry on with your crusade. Scientists by the hundreds are more and more realising there must have been and still exist.. An intelegent Designer. His name is God, the Father of Jesus.
Do you remember the "missing squadron"?
That was enough proof for me..
Like NCS's say.. "everything evolved for millions of years, except footprints. All the footprints found are exactly like the feet of today.
Blessings!!
Post a Comment